The European Union: No Friend of the United States, Democracy, or Free Speech

The United States and the European Union (EU) are often portrayed as natural allies, bound by shared values, history, and mutual economic interests. Yet behind this façade lies the reality that the EU repeatedly acts to undermine American power, prosperity, and principles. Far from being a loyal friend, the EU is a strategic competitor, an economic rival, and a political bloc hostile to democracy and free speech.
Moreover, U.S. leaders like Clinton, Obama, and Biden often aligned themselves closely with the EU and its globalist ideology, and, at least as seen from the British view, do so at the expense of our and American sovereignty, national interests, and constitutional freedoms. In doing so, these leaders facilitated not only the EU’s rise—nobody in Britain will forget Obama’s threat just before we voted to leave the rotten, corrupt EU—but also undermined the democratic foundations and free speech traditions valued by our conservative American friends.
The EU is a supranational political entity with ambitions that run counter to American interests and the principles of self-governance. It is an organization that stifles democratic expression, disregards the will of the people in the member nations, and suppresses dissent. It has long used its regulatory clout to pursue policies that harm American industries, the most glaring example being the Airbus-Boeing dispute in which the EU provided illegal subsidies to Airbus, enabling it to undercut Boeing on the global stage. Despite WTO rulings condemning these subsidies, the EU has consistently prioritized protecting its own industries (mostly French and German) over fair competition.
In the technology sector, the EU has waged regulatory warfare against American tech giants. Under the guise of privacy protection and consumer rights, it has implemented sweeping rules such as the General Data Protection Regulation and issued multi-billion-euro fines against U.S. companies, including Google, Amazon, and Apple. While concerns over data privacy are legitimate, the EU’s hypocritical regulatory approach is motivated by protectionism and a desire to weaken U.S. technological dominance.
Beyond economics, the EU repeatedly seeks to position itself as a counterbalance to U.S. global leadership. During the 2003 Iraq War, key EU members like France and Germany led international opposition to the U.S.-led coalition, undermining American diplomatic efforts and fueling global anti-American sentiment.
In the realm of defence, the EU pushes for “strategic autonomy,” seeking to create an EU military apparatus independent of NATO and, by extension, the United States. French President Macron and other EU leaders have openly advocated reducing European dependence on the U.S. for security, in a not-so-subtle signal of their desire to diminish American influence in Europe.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the EU’s trajectory is its hostility toward democracy and free speech, principles supposedly enshrined in Western political culture. While the EU lectures the world on human rights and democratic values, it has repeatedly shown disdain for democracy by ignoring or overturning referendum results and trying to change national election results.

And then there was Greece’s 2015 Bailout Referendum, when the Greek people overwhelmingly rejected the harsh EU-imposed austerity conditions. EU leaders ignored the result and forced Greeks to accept the humiliating terms anyhow, revealing the EU’s deep contempt for popular sovereignty. Whenever democratic expression threatens the power of Brussels, it is sidelined, ignored, or manipulated.
In recent years, the EU has also emerged as a global champion of internet censorship and restrictions on free speech. Under the pretense of combating “hate speech,” “disinformation,” and “extremism,” it has introduced sweeping legislation such as the Digital Services and Digital Markets Acts that erodes the free exchange of ideas. These laws give the EU authority to police online content, forcing platforms to remove vaguely defined “harmful” or “illegal” material.
European Commissioners have openly threatened social media platforms with bans or sanctions if they do not accept their censorship demands, thus creating an environment where tech companies pre-emptively suppress speech to avoid regulatory retaliation.
In my opinion, American leaders like Bill Clinton aided and abetted this and the EU’s rise, even as the EU pursued policies contrary to American interests and democratic principles. Clinton, in tandem with the poisonous Tony Blair in England, marked the dawn of a globalist imperium in Washington that elevated international institutions and transnational integration over national sovereignty. Clinton’s administration enthusiastically supported the EU’s expansion and consolidation, even as this empowered an economic rival and an anti-democratic bureaucracy.
Clinton’s push for NAFTA, U.S. entry into the WTO, and a general policy of economic ‘liberalization’ echoed the EU’s supranational model. While these policies benefited elites, they devastated American manufacturing and eroded working-class communities.
Blair followed the same model in Britain. As the EU manipulated referendum outcomes and centralized power, the Clinton administration remained conspicuously silent. Rather than standing up for democratic principles and national self-determination, Clinton’s government cheered on the EU project, regardless of its anti-democratic tendencies.
President Obama took Clinton’s globalist orientation to new heights. His presidency represented the most ideologically aligned American leadership the EU had ever encountered. Obama’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Paris Climate Accord, a framework largely shaped by EU priorities, exemplified his readiness to subordinate U.S. economic interests to globalist objectives by imposing burdensome environmental restrictions on American industry while giving major polluters like China and India a free pass.
His Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) similarly reflected his willingness to entangle the US in complex regulatory frameworks designed by and for EU bureaucrats. TTIP’s goal was regulatory “harmonization,” but in practice, it would have meant American businesses conforming to EU rules, diluting U.S. sovereignty, and empowering Brussels.
On the eve of Britain’s referendum to leave the EU, Obama colluded with the British government’s Project Fear to threaten that, should we vote to leave, Britain would “go to the back of the queue.” Fortunately, his intervention backfired, and we voted to leave (though our government tries to get us back in through stealth and lies).
So, beneath the public declarations of partnership, the European Union has emerged as a strategic rival to the United States, a political entity hostile to democracy and free speech, and a promoter of globalist policies that erode national sovereignty.
Friendship is measured not by shared platitudes but by respect for sovereignty, democracy, and liberty. By that measure, the EU is no friend of the United States, and neither were Clinton and Obama.
Everything I’ve said above applies more so to us here in Britain. Our ‘elite’ love the EU and hate Britain. Most ordinary Brits would turn instinctively to the US for friendship and support—that is, they’d turn to the America of Reagan, not that of Clinton, Obama, or Biden.
Post a Comment